One- Nah, the way I meant it was that some of what we think they feel is just out tendency to find patterns in places they aren't. There are some, especially in social animals, and although it's not nearly of a comprable scale as humans, it's there.
Two- If you were alone in the forest with a bear, and it wanted to eat you, it would. It wouldnt stop and think."man, that poor human, it's not nearly strong enough to fight me, maybe I should just let it go", no, it doesn't care. So, why do we take the time to stop and think "man, this poor bear, we're cutting down it's forest and it can't even stop us, we should probably go easy on it". If we are going to interact with nature, which we have to to survive, we need to be on the same page,

Three- The same applies to mentally disabled people. They receive even more pampering than animals do, and we can't even gain a scourge of food from them. They're like a parasite, taking and giving nothing back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, humans only had 46 chromosomes.

2. That's a faulty comparison. If a bear is going to attack you, definitely do whatever you have to do to survive. However, if the bear is in a suburban area and isn't presently causing any harm, I'm saying we should tranquilize it and throw its ass back in the woods instead of blowing its head out with a shotgun. If the bear is terrorizing the town and killing people, maybe we should kill it. Our responsibility as beings capable of situation analysis is to know when force is excessive and when it's needed.

The forest comparison is totally off-base. That has nothing to do with our treatment of the animal and instead the treatment of the animal's home, an entirely different subject.

2a. What's this whole "interact with nature" thing? We're not in the food chain anymore. We don't need to kill animals because they're going to kill us if we don't. Animals don't have this luxury. We're already superior of nature. Forests have been cut down to make way for human activities. There's nothing to catch up to.

I won't get into three because that's now a totally different subject.

Have you not considered that perhaps we're just seeing things in animal behavior that aren't there? I'm sure half of the examples are just us finding patterns of human responses where there are none, and the other half dont matter anyway, because at the end of the day, as sentient creatures, we a re on a higher level of existence than them, and have the right to treat them however we want. Should we pourposefully be an ass to animals? No, but we shouldn't waste time trying to make their lives better.

I think it's absolutely false to say animals don't experience emotion in this way. Animals may even experience emotion unconsciously (in the sense that it's purely biological, whereas in people, what makes one person happy could make another person unhappy), but to say animals don't experience emotion is foolish. Correct me if my interpretation of your argument is wrong, but that's what I've gathered.

I also think it's morally wrong to say that because we're smarter, we can treat animals however we want to. There are adult humans that require more intensive care than adult animals do, so do we have the right to treat those people however we want to just because our existence is different than theirs? I'm not advocating for animals to be treated the same way as people, but we have a responsibility as the more intelligent species to know that inflicting undue pain on another being is wrong.

One- Nah, the way I meant it was that some of what we think they feel is just out tendency to find patterns in places they aren't. There are some, especially in social animals, and although it's not nearly of a comprable scale as humans, it's there.
Two- If you were alone in the forest with a bear, and it wanted to eat you, it would. It wouldnt stop and think."man, that poor human, it's not nearly strong enough to fight me, maybe I should just let it go", no, it doesn't care. So, why do we take the time to stop and think "man, this poor bear, we're cutting down it's forest and it can't even stop us, we should probably go easy on it". If we are going to interact with nature, which we have to to survive, we need to be on the same page,

Three- The same applies to mentally disabled people. They receive even more pampering than animals do, and we can't even gain a scourge of food from them. They're like a parasite, taking and giving nothing back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, humans only had 46 chromosomes.

2. That's a faulty comparison. If a bear is going to attack you, definitely do whatever you have to do to survive. However, if the bear is in a suburban area and isn't presently causing any harm, I'm saying we should tranquilize it and throw its ass back in the woods instead of blowing its head out with a shotgun. If the bear is terrorizing the town and killing people, maybe we should kill it. Our responsibility as beings capable of situation analysis is to know when force is excessive and when it's needed.

The forest comparison is totally off-base. That has nothing to do with our treatment of the animal and instead the treatment of the animal's home, an entirely different subject.

2a. What's this whole "interact with nature" thing? We're not in the food chain anymore. We don't need to kill animals because they're going to kill us if we don't. Animals don't have this luxury. We're already superior of nature. Forests have been cut down to make way for human activities. There's nothing to catch up to.

I won't get into three because that's now a totally different subject.

Some animals may seem to reciprocate care, but this is only their tendencies as social animals combined with their imitation of human actions, they lack the mental capacity to actually understand complex human emotions, they only appear to.

Who said anything about human emotions? I'm not trying to map human emotions to animals. I'm just saying many animals are capable of feeling different emotions and the ones that meet a certain set of criteria shouldn't be allowed to be treated in some ways. For instance, elephants have been known to experience things like grief, but that doesn't mean they'll dress up in black and gather together if another elephant dies. Since most elephants don't experience human's going through grief, how could they possibly be mimicking a human emotion? Some animals are able to experience some emotions.

Have you not considered that perhaps we're just seeing things in animal behavior that aren't there? I'm sure half of the examples are just us finding patterns of human responses where there are none, and the other half dont matter anyway, because at the end of the day, as sentient creatures, we a re on a higher level of existence than them, and have the right to treat them however we want. Should we pourposefully be an ass to animals? No, but we shouldn't waste time trying to make their lives better.

I think it's absolutely false to say animals don't experience emotion in this way. Animals may even experience emotion unconsciously (in the sense that it's purely biological, whereas in people, what makes one person happy could make another person unhappy), but to say animals don't experience emotion is foolish. Correct me if my interpretation of your argument is wrong, but that's what I've gathered.

I also think it's morally wrong to say that because we're smarter, we can treat animals however we want to. There are adult humans that require more intensive care than adult animals do, so do we have the right to treat those people however we want to just because our existence is different than theirs? I'm not advocating for animals to be treated the same way as people, but we have a responsibility as the more intelligent species to know that inflicting undue pain on another being is wrong.

One- Nah, the way I meant it was that some of what we think they feel is just out tendency to find patterns in places they aren't. There are some, especially in social animals, and although it's not nearly of a comprable scale as humans, it's there.
Two- If you were alone in the forest with a bear, and it wanted to eat you, it would. It wouldnt stop and think."man, that poor human, it's not nearly strong enough to fight me, maybe I should just let it go", no, it doesn't care. So, why do we take the time to stop and think "man, this poor bear, we're cutting down it's forest and it can't even stop us, we should probably go easy on it". If we are going to interact with nature, which we have to to survive, we need to be on the same page,

Three- The same applies to mentally disabled people. They receive even more pampering than animals do, and we can't even gain a scourge of food from them. They're like a parasite, taking and giving nothing back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, humans only had 46 chromosomes.

2. That's a faulty comparison. If a bear is going to attack you, definitely do whatever you have to do to survive. However, if the bear is in a suburban area and isn't presently causing any harm, I'm saying we should tranquilize it and throw its ass back in the woods instead of blowing its head out with a shotgun. If the bear is terrorizing the town and killing people, maybe we should kill it. Our responsibility as beings capable of situation analysis is to know when force is excessive and when it's needed.

The forest comparison is totally off-base. That has nothing to do with our treatment of the animal and instead the treatment of the animal's home, an entirely different subject.

2a. What's this whole "interact with nature" thing? We're not in the food chain anymore. We don't need to kill animals because they're going to kill us if we don't. Animals don't have this luxury. We're already superior of nature. Forests have been cut down to make way for human activities. There's nothing to catch up to.

I won't get into three because that's now a totally different subject.

Who cares if an animal feels pain. Of you were in a room with a starved tiger, do you think that it would care about how eating you would make you feel? Animals cannot reciprocate care. Any effort we put into helping them creates a parasitic relationship, in which we give resources and get nothing in return. Nature is cruel. If we want to deal with nature, we need to get on it's level.

That's a whole different argument about how we should use our consciousness and if that means taking advantage of species with lower or no levels of consciousness. Frankly, I don't think either of us has enough knowledge about the subject to have that conversation.

Also, for the record, some animals can reciprocate care. I'm thinking now this is just a bait comment.

Some animals may seem to reciprocate care, but this is only their tendencies as social animals combined with their imitation of human actions, they lack the mental capacity to actually understand complex human emotions, they only appear to.

Who said anything about human emotions? I'm not trying to map human emotions to animals. I'm just saying many animals are capable of feeling different emotions and the ones that meet a certain set of criteria shouldn't be allowed to be treated in some ways. For instance, elephants have been known to experience things like grief, but that doesn't mean they'll dress up in black and gather together if another elephant dies. Since most elephants don't experience human's going through grief, how could they possibly be mimicking a human emotion? Some animals are able to experience some emotions.

Have you not considered that perhaps we're just seeing things in animal behavior that aren't there? I'm sure half of the examples are just us finding patterns of human responses where there are none, and the other half dont matter anyway, because at the end of the day, as sentient creatures, we a re on a higher level of existence than them, and have the right to treat them however we want. Should we pourposefully be an ass to animals? No, but we shouldn't waste time trying to make their lives better.

I think it's absolutely false to say animals don't experience emotion in this way. Animals may even experience emotion unconsciously (in the sense that it's purely biological, whereas in people, what makes one person happy could make another person unhappy), but to say animals don't experience emotion is foolish. Correct me if my interpretation of your argument is wrong, but that's what I've gathered.

I also think it's morally wrong to say that because we're smarter, we can treat animals however we want to. There are adult humans that require more intensive care than adult animals do, so do we have the right to treat those people however we want to just because our existence is different than theirs? I'm not advocating for animals to be treated the same way as people, but we have a responsibility as the more intelligent species to know that inflicting undue pain on another being is wrong.

One- Nah, the way I meant it was that some of what we think they feel is just out tendency to find patterns in places they aren't. There are some, especially in social animals, and although it's not nearly of a comprable scale as humans, it's there.
Two- If you were alone in the forest with a bear, and it wanted to eat you, it would. It wouldnt stop and think."man, that poor human, it's not nearly strong enough to fight me, maybe I should just let it go", no, it doesn't care. So, why do we take the time to stop and think "man, this poor bear, we're cutting down it's forest and it can't even stop us, we should probably go easy on it". If we are going to interact with nature, which we have to to survive, we need to be on the same page,

Three- The same applies to mentally disabled people. They receive even more pampering than animals do, and we can't even gain a scourge of food from them. They're like a parasite, taking and giving nothing back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked, humans only had 46 chromosomes.

2. That's a faulty comparison. If a bear is going to attack you, definitely do whatever you have to do to survive. However, if the bear is in a suburban area and isn't presently causing any harm, I'm saying we should tranquilize it and throw its ass back in the woods instead of blowing its head out with a shotgun. If the bear is terrorizing the town and killing people, maybe we should kill it. Our responsibility as beings capable of situation analysis is to know when force is excessive and when it's needed.

The forest comparison is totally off-base. That has nothing to do with our treatment of the animal and instead the treatment of the animal's home, an entirely different subject.

2a. What's this whole "interact with nature" thing? We're not in the food chain anymore. We don't need to kill animals because they're going to kill us if we don't. Animals don't have this luxury. We're already superior of nature. Forests have been cut down to make way for human activities. There's nothing to catch up to.

I won't get into three because that's now a totally different subject.

>>#40, As a rule of thumb, if your news calls somone who didn't commit any warcrimes recently a "nazi" or reminding of such, chances are high that it's bullshit. You don't like it when liberals go out and call trump a nazi for no reason, so why call others like that. Call people nazis when they actually commit acts reminding people of nazis. You'd be pretty insulted if george takei would claim the US is acting as they were during WW2 towards the japanese population, or their current stance is reminding of such. Dunno, maybe the guy even does that, but it's a wrong and bad thing and i don't think we should encourage your news sources to imitate that behaviour. "Unfiltered Truth" my ass.

I looked at the speech and translated it:
"We europeans have to take our destiny into our own hands, of course in friendship with the US, in friendship with Great Britain. In good neigborhood, whereveer possible (i know, sounds weird), also with russia,also with other countries, but, we have to know, we have to fight for our own future,as europeans, for our destiny, and i want to do that with you together"

Well, if you take fight literally in the sense of war,that doesn't sound nice. It doesn't sound nice in general, because the phrasing sounds like bullshit. If you are looking for differences between merkel and hitler, the first one is that merkel has as much charisma as a potato. But the word fight is used in non miliitaristic contexts quite often. A football team says that they have to fight for victory, because they will struggle and give their best to achieve it. Doesn't mean they'll actually bring guns to the field and shoot everyone.

Essentially, all she is saying is that she is pissed off with the US+UK and wants to make a sign. As a result, nothing will change, other than maybe some EU countries increasing their millitary, obviously not to threaten UK and US, but because they want to claim that in the case of a foreign attack they would be able to defend themselves. Which is acting a bit big, i don't think they would. She said she can't rely on the US, not that the US can't rely on germany or the EU if they were to be attacked. I think most of us disagree here and think trump would actually help out in case of a foreign attack, but this doesn't show hostilities towards the US, she only tries really hard to look disappointed in them. In reality, she is annoyed at trumps position regarding climate change, i guess. But more contribution is what the US always wanted of the EU. So even if her attitude towards trump is negative, all that seems to change is that she might want to increase Nato contributions, which is what Trump wanted the whole time. Insert 4D chess memes.

Plus, the entire self-autonomy talk is appealing to the population, because we didn't forget how the US spied out our government.

The entire talk isn't nazi like, it's big barking with little behind it, and what might happen as a consequence is not bad for the US it seems.

>>#28, Well, i didn't really look at your comment. It shouldn't matter because i wasn't trying to be condescending towards you, only towards the news itself, but i am as good at that as merkel is good at charismatic speeches.
The entire part with "you" is more directed towards the news source itself. Sorry if anything from my comment seemed to have a hostile tone towards you.

Ah, okay. Yeah, I was just giving the source for people who wanted to look into it further and see if the site seemed bogus or not. I went back and looked at it right after posting and it seemed pretty untrustworthy to me.